From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-10 21:46:07
Thanks for the review.
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> Introduces alot of new concepts for something relatively simple, logging. A
> study of the headers suggests a boostified functional style, but with lots
> of macros,
> which some developers here have no objection over. I on the other hand
Just to make sure , you're talking about this:
> would like to see less, or even no macros in the public interface. A
> functional, lambda style
> logging interface should be adequate. If a macro is needed, suggest it as a
> but dont force it on the user in the example(s).
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> Overall, I didnt like the informal style, but I was able to get the
> information I needed.
> Author tries to be too "cute" or "friendly". Author should get rid of
> informal comments
> and replace them with more professional language.
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> Potential is high. Would I use this library. As it stands, no. The
> still suggest to me that logging requirements are too application specific,
> this library doesnt change that equation. If it had a simple, boostified,
> interface, with no macros, and no learning curve, I would probably use it.
When talking about "lambda interface", do you mean to use functors, in
general? Like, for filtering and logging?
> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
> I would evaluate it again, if the author would
> create a more boost friendly, lambda style public interface.
Well, it seems I have no choice ;)
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert http://blog.torjo.com ... call me only if you want things done right
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk